I am hard pressed to think of anywhere else where a resident can view a three-story brick building right from her family room. Can you think of one? Most other properties had to put up a giant wall, or trees that were 100 gallons or more. Properties such as H-E-B and Kroger want to please their customers and comply with these types of standards. Apparently, commercial properties with a religious base do not have to meet the same standards, as we have seen throughout this process. Not only do they not have to, according to the DSC, but they don't care to, either. Unlike the grocers, who have to please a wide variety of customers, the STAOP only needs to please their parishioners.

After destroying acre upon acre of trees, we are left with a scant 8-foot fence and several hundred (useless) shrubs, and a few trees to look at. Not only are all the buildings easily visible, but the lights from the parking lot have been an ongoing problem. If I wanted to stare at a fence and concrete, I could move anywhere outside of The Woodlands and have a property for much less. I chose to live in The Woodlands because I thought they had high "standards" for development, and that these standards were applied equally to everyone. I am sorry to be disappointed as I see my property values fall.

If the Development Standards Committee truly wants to safeguard residents' property values, and the sanctity of The Woodlands, they need to apply the same standards to each and every commercial property, and not change the rules when they want to.

Leela Duncan

The Woodlands

Who qualifies?

To the editor:

In a recent letter from Mr. Faseler, he countered one of my recent letters with regard to eligibility for any help from U.S. sources for illegal, or some want to say undocumented, aliens and their families.

In his letter, he made comments about a particular court rendering, I believe, was a Chinese immigrant that came to the U.S. as a child and won this decision with regard to what he was entitled to as a child of immigrants. Similar to the Dredd vs Scott decision.

Faseler did what most people like to do, and that is taking a sentence purely out of context or didn't research the total subject matter to see fully whom these Chinese people were. If he had, he would have seen that Asian workers were in fact coming here in droves to work in the U.S. during 1800 and early 1900s like many other races from other countries. These people came through Ellis Island and established an immigrant status, the only one available at that time.

They, Asian people of decent, were not citizens of the country but came through, at that time, legally and therefore established and attained legal residency status. Their children that came through at that time were also not citizens, rather an alien with no country, following their family. They were not entitled for those rights as defined in our Constitution by the 14th Amendment either. Since they were not eligible for any rights, and since they were aliens, one difference stands out like a beacon, they did not enter the country illegally, bringing their families with them whom are also illegal.

Now let's look at what happened in our government that stemmed the mass entrance into our country. Congress enacted laws that slowly closed the "open door" policy simply because we had no control over whom entered and quite honestly who the people were entering.

As best as we could to vett these people entering, for any crime figures that might have entered, some most definitely gained entrance.

President Trump is trying to accomplish exactly what we have been talking about for years, and that is making the U.S. great again. Since we are a country of laws, let's enforce the laws on the books without recourse. Hence the border wall or walls.

Anyone who tries to legalize what illegal people do have a flaw in their thought process.

Please, Mr. Faseler, get your facts right before writing. I know there are a trove of people that really like to read history when it applies to the now. Let's all get to know our history and how it applies to people today.

If we were to pick and choose what laws we want to enforce, we might as well go back to throwing rocks at each other and allow lawlessness prevail.

For me and mine, I will not be subject to that thinking

Wesly Johnson

Panorama Village

Congress must extend CHIP funding

To the editor:

Congress allowed the Children's Health Insurance Program to expire Sept. 30, which provides health insurance to 9 million American children. Without CHIP funding, millions of children nationwide and thousands in our state will be at risk of losing their health coverage with no other affordable alternative. With a lot of bipartisan support for this widely popular program, it should be a no-brainer to pass a clean, fully funded extension of CHIP - Congress just needs to act.

CHIP ensures coverage for the most vulnerable children, and helps to ease the burden of parents struggling economically. Since its inception in 1997, CHIP and Medicaid have helped to cut the number of uninsured children by 68 percent while improving health outcomes and access to care for kids and pregnant women across the United States. In fact, CHIP and Medicaid cover 1 in 3 children in the United States.

In order to keep our children healthy and help families struggling economically, it is crucial that Congress extend CHIP funding for five years this month. It's the perfect opportunity for our leaders in Washington, D.C., to come together to get something positive done for the American people.